Banned users: You can ignore and close reports made by banned users. If they provide reliable, direct sources/the report is obviously correct, feel free to apply the corrections, but either way is fine.

HouseSpiders wrote:

:nono: Sorry, but I don't agree with that. IMO, if anyone provides verifiable sources and the report is clearly accurate, we should never just ignore it and close a good report. That just doesn't seem right to me at all. As you said, there aren't many reports from banned users in the queue, but I have actually seen some pretty good ones from banned users (surprising I know) that should definitely not be ignored. I actually took the assignment for one just a few minutes ago.

Moi wrote:

As I said, either way is fine if the issue/report is valid and properly sourced. But, honestly, if someone manages to get himself banned, I won't lose any sleep over a few possibly justified reports that get prematurely closed or not. I think what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't get too worked up over the fact that the report was made by a Fred Durst and whether or not to deal with it or to what extent or what part can be trusted etc..., just close it if you feel like it. Or don't. Be aware, though, that reports by banned users are sometimes connected to the very reason they were shown the door.

Hahaha, every year it gets harder and harder to believe that people still do that.

I've been working through some of the tougher reports like "wrong music genre" which take a lot of time to go through. Gotta clear out all of the "moderator attention" reports before I grind the other ones.

I don't know how the hell you guys have been looking at these reports for years - there's just so many with no verifiable source and/or that just make no sense. Mind numbing at points.

The best way to handle those is to copy/paste a detailed message about what is required, if there's no source then it could just be re-reported if the person can provide the info we need to change it. I have also brought up the idea of trying to offer a bit more transparency and clarity to how we work with reports.

70 reports that require moderator attention left - how many of these "wrong genre" reports until my brain melts?

Request input from site users, be specific of course. If there's no response a few weeks after attention having been requested, you can close the report with a note saying to re-report it if they are able to supply the needed information/source. Use your discretion with this, and don't dwell on reports that lack sources and necessary info, if you're a knight or report queue warrior, we trust that you have pretty good judgment with this - I wouldn't go further than checking the official Facebook/VK/homepage or whatever, if there is one, for things like lineup info and releases.

This is probably a bit repetitive because it's early in the morning, but I think you'll get the idea.

Heh, as far as I know, you can't actually "patent" lyrics. You can copyright them, but "patents" are usually reserved for innovations.

That said, we're neither publishing lyrics for the purpose of commercial gain (we don't do that), nor are we disassociating the lyrics from their original purpose or their holder (simply reporting on what the holder has published - a form of fair dealing). One of the important facets to this site, and to any encyclopedia really, is the idea of "fair dealing"; it is a place where individuals can objectively research and learn about the subject matter, through what is freely available publicly. As an encyclopedia, we are free to embark on that mission, so long as we follow that vision.

The report queue has recently been decreasing significantly every day. Excellent work, people!

Just like a week and a half ago it was up in 4 digits again - nice to see it down close to 500. Some of the new ones are making my brain hurt - so I've been hitting up like page 3, starting in the middle of the queue on those reports that have just lingered out there forever.

_________________In a recent review: "I didn't expect any "new" record by any "new" band to blow me like this."

It's been a great effort to tame the queue, quite a few people putting in good work, so thanks to everyone who is working on it. Has anyone found anything interesting? Strange things of interesting, good bands, funny pictures?

theunrelentingattack wrote:

HouseSpiders wrote:

The report queue has recently been decreasing significantly every day. Excellent work, people!

Just like a week and a half ago it was up in 4 digits again - nice to see it down close to 500. Some of the new ones are making my brain hurt - so I've been hitting up like page 3, starting in the middle of the queue on those reports that have just lingered out there forever.

I know that feeling. I'll often see something complicated/confusing and my brain doesn't want to work after being focused on rather minor tasks, so I'll do some work on the band queue or read the forums.

Right now the queues are as follows:Bands: 114Reviews: 0Reports: 479

OpsiusCato and I are going to try to trim down the band queue now, and Azzy has gone to bed. I'm full of pizza to fuel myself and have plenty of beer to numb my mind!

It's been a great effort to tame the queue, quite a few people putting in good work, so thanks to everyone who is working on it. Has anyone found anything interesting? Strange things of interesting, good bands, funny pictures?

Nothing really funny or shocking as of late unfortunately - but I'm still loving the reports that start off with something like "Fuck you assholes..." yes, I mean, that's going to make me want to change something. And while I understand that every band has a different idea of how they want to portray themselves, the amount of photos they want that are just plain bad is astounding.

_________________In a recent review: "I didn't expect any "new" record by any "new" band to blow me like this."

Someone has apparently forgotten all of his login information, but says that regarding his artist profile and doesn't provide any clue about what his username could be. Alternatively, could be he's thinking MA is like FB and the artist profile is a user profile, and thus he must've registered even when he might not have.

Nothing wrong with what he's reporting (I get what he's going for) and I almost feel bad laughing since he's 15 according to his profile but his command of the English language is incredibly bad (or his translator program sucks) leading to some really funny statements:

"They are using the old logo in flames on the old not the new evidence he fails to see that I lie not."

"Merodac longer belongs to just more if not Dark Canvas Records."

I can't stop laughing about that In Flames statement. Poor kid.

_________________In a recent review: "I didn't expect any "new" record by any "new" band to blow me like this."

Alright, I have a question. If a visitor files a report for two of his 'bandpages' 1 minute apart from each other, claiming that they're both split-up, should we really take his word for it? This report gave me the question. Personally, I can't help but think that in this case setting the status as "Unknown" would be a MUCH better option (if not revert the change), and this is for two reasons:

1. Perhaps there is a 'good chance' the reporter was who he claimed to be as he sent two reports in quick succession, but it still hasn't been 100% proven. It could still have been some plonker who knows him personally pretending to be him or just somebody who knows about his bands. Unlikely, but apparently things like that have happened before, and there's no real way we can be absolutely sure it hadn't happened in that particular report.

2. I've also read before from moderators and totally agree that updates should always be based on fact, and NOT assumption... and I gotta honestly say, the updates made on those bandpages were both much closer to the latter.

Anyway, they're just my thoughts on the issue. I've already discussed this with Obscurum a little bit, and we kind of agreed I might want to ask the higher-ups, so I'm just asking here so that if a similar case appears one day, I can know whether it is better to continue doing what I am (ask for better proof and not change either of the band's statuses) or to happily make the update.

_________________

vacca wrote:

"Pointwhoring is no fun. Pointwhoring endangers the life and happiness of millions. It must stop. We appeal in particular to the youth of today, stop the madness. There are better things in life."

Generally, we do not make updates that can not be verified. However, there is some room to make judgment calls on whether or not a reporter is trustworthy, which you should be very cautious with. The significance and likelihood of the information and claims should be considered - someone reporting two of his bands who have been inactive and don't even have an online presence as being split-up, it is likely true. We do prefer to have outdated information rather than inaccurate information though, but in this case, I think that's a reasonable thing to believe.

Asking for more information is always good, and I hope that we can do that more effectively if we clear out the massive backlog of work there is to be done in the report queue. Many of us have been making concentrated efforts to do that, and I believe that faster handling of reports and reducing the backlog of reports will enhance the integrity of the information on the site. The knight rank has been an amazing addition to handling the report queue - I know that both from being a knight and a lord.

126 bands and 450 reports. All 8 reviews in the queue are for "13" and I'm not touching those unless these other queues are empty.

e: 108/449 now

156 bands, 226 reports, and 11 reviews for 13/Super Collider/Halo of Blood. A few more days keeping up this pace and the toughest report left in the queue should be done, and we'll need to make a big effort to handle the band queue.

Perhaps we need an organized reference of some of the issues that frequently come up but aren't directly addressed in the rules.

No artist of that name seems to exists, and none of the plain Chips seemed to have anything to do with Rainow. This could be one of the great unsolved mysteries of our time. If he's missing from somewhere, surely he'd made a sensible report about it?

I doubt that dude had ANYTHING to do with Rainbow... he's from fucking Texas... Probably just some 53 year old balding man that is just happy that a website has all the correctly spelled information about Rainbow of all bands.

No artist of that name seems to exists, and none of the plain Chips seemed to have anything to do with Rainow. This could be one of the great unsolved mysteries of our time. If he's missing from somewhere, surely he'd made a sensible report about it?

I think when he said "the information that was imparted upon me", he meant the stuff that he learned from the database. Not that there was info about him to be found there.